Politics

A tough, bipartisan win: Murray-Ryan Budget Deal

originally published in The Herald

“For too long, we’ve rewarded the screamers,” Sen. Patty Murray told The Herald. It’s the screamers who foster cynicism and diminish public life. For the past few years, they’ve defined the first branch of government.

A respite from the clatter and two years of budget semi-certainty (everything is relative in the age of gridlock) are in the public interest. The Murray-Ryan budget deal is cringe inducing for partisans on both sides, but it trumps inaction. Absent a deal, Congress would pinball from crisis to crisis; the center — such as it is — cannot hold.

The agreement zeroes out $63 billion in military and domestic spending cuts over two years. The partial rollback of sequestration means programs such as Head Start and critical medical research will be spared the ax (Good news for Snohomish County, which saw the shuttering of a North Everett Head Start program earlier this year.). Domestic and military spending would tick up from $967 billion for the current fiscal year to $1.012 trillion. The package trims the deficit by between $20 and $23 billion.

Who takes a hit? Federal workers will need to contribute more to their pensions, saving $6 billion, and military pensions will reflect a slower cost-of-living adjustment. Long-term unemployment benefits will expire at the end of the month, a Christmastime blow to 25,000 Washingtonians. Republicans wouldn’t budge on taxes; Democrats on entitlements.
Continue reading

Peace after the IAM vote: Back to the bargaining table

originally published in The Herald

The takeaway from the International Association of Machinists’ tsunami rejection of the pistol-to-your-head Boeing contract: Working people don’t want to get buffaloed, especially by elites.

The contract was textbook divide and conquer. Create an incentive package that segments union membership. A $10,000 bonus draws younger workers disinclined to stew about retirement. Ready-to-retire employees benefit now, however mindful of a raw deal for newer machinists. Solidarity, though, animates a union. An unintended consequence of finger wagging is shove-it unanimity.

As The Herald Editorial Board wrote on Sunday, “To ensure 777X production in Washington, Machinists have been pressured to take one for the team, ratifying a contract freighted with concessions. Trouble is, the Machinists are the team.”
Continue reading

Eroding faith in politics: The government shutdown

originally published in The Herald

The madness of a government shutdown has a corrosive effect, not only on markets and morale, but also on young people who otherwise would gravitate to public life. That’s the intangible fallout, the post-traumatic slow burn. Paralysis in D.C. discourages the best and motivates the worst.

The blame game? Yes, hidebound Republicans in the U.S. House are responsible (or more specifically, a faction of hidebound Republicans). However, when families are turned away from Mount Rainier National Park today, when civilian military employees learn they won’t get paid, the blame is evenly spread. The impasse becomes a metaphor, the way not to get things done.

The visceral impulse is to throw the bums out, although that opportunity is a full 14 months away (note: officeholders and their families often take offense at the term “bums”). Most lawmakers work extremely hard. The challenge is ideological. Red states get redder, blue states get bluer, and never the polarizers shall meet.

Obamacare, with its overshadowed launch today, is the lightning rod. The law needs tweaking, but de-funding it again and again is theater, not leadership,
Continue reading

For a people’s ombudsman: Snohomish County government

originally published in The Herald

A culture of accountability requires ethical leadership and an institutional check of the humans-are-no-angels variety. After his first 100 days in office, Snohomish County Executive John Lovick seems to have the leadership part down. Now comes the institutional check.

When Lovick unveils his county budget at the end of September, it will include $100,000 for a county ombudsman. It’s a promising first step to advance government accountability.

During the Aaron Reardon imbroglio early in 2013, The Herald Editorial Board recommended that Snohomish County disband its toothless ethics commission and establish a county ombudsman to quickly and effectively investigate citizen complaints. The idea has been championed by Deputy County Executive Mark Ericks, a former state legislator and U.S. marshal for Western Washington.
Continue reading

A chance for a fresh start: Aaron Reardon’s resignation

originally published in The Herald

Thursday’s resignation of Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon was a joyless capsule on tainted leadership. Cathartic it wasn’t, because catharsis requires accountability, authenticity, a willingness to make amends.

A career politician adroit at taking credit for the labor of others, Reardon stood defiant, unwilling to shoulder blame or responsibility –or even feign humility — for a crisis of his own creation.

As the late Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, said to the White House congressional liaison in 1980, “You guys came in like a bunch of jerks, and I see you’re going out the same way.”

At his State of the County address, Reardon announced that he would resign at the end of May because of “false and scurrilous accusations” emanating from “groups that oppose” him. Exceptional investigative reporting by The Herald’s Scott North and Noah Haglund revealed evidence of online harassment and surveillance of Reardon’s political enemies — a list that extends to those who cooperated in the Washington State Patrol’s investigation of Reardon’s use of public money.

What, precisely, is false? Reardon merits an opportunity to defend his character and leadership but, like a third-world autocrat, he prefers to isolate, refusing to answer questions. It’s an evocative silence.
Continue reading

For gun-injury research: Gun violence in America, Part 4

originally published in The Herald

Historian Richard Hofstadter called it the paranoid style in American politics. The NRA’s bloviating Wayne LaPierre is Exhibit One, an angry mind hankering to enshrine George Orwell’s “1984” catchphrase, that ignorance is strength.

The child massacre in Newtown cast into relief LaPierre and the NRA’s decades-long campaign to supplant health research on firearms and violence. Research and facts a hazard? In the paranoid war on firearms data and public health, the paranoid are winning.

Dr. Fred Rivara of the UW’s Department of Pediatrics and Seattle Children’s Hospital experienced the NRA’s data stiffling first-hand. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, Rivara and his colleague, the Rand Corporation’s Dr. Arthur Kellermann, conducted firearm-injury research. The hammer fell in 1996, when an NRA-obsequious Congress whacked $2.6 million from the Centers for Disease Control. As Rivera and Kellermann note in an online essay for the Journal of the American Medical Association, $2.6 million just happened to be the amount dedicated to firearm-injury research. They quote the Appropriation language which underlines the point. “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” The inference is that empirical, control-tested data might demonstrate a relationship between gun control and a public good (say, fewer murdered children.) What if the opposite is true, and the NRA’s prescription of armed guards at schools has merit? As the National Academy of Sciences reported in 2004, there is inadequate data to determine what’s effective. Doctors and social scientists need to analyze inputs, but the NRA and its minions in Congress — and even the Washington Legislature — will have none of it.

Continue reading

Immigration reform now: A sensible approach

originally published in The Herald

In the verve and anarchy of the campaign season, immigration reform devolves into code words. The pronoun “they” and shorthand “illegals” serve a political end–to evoke fear, to scapegoat, to conjure a sense of disorder. Ironically, just floating the how-do-we-tackle-it question kindles anti-immigrant sentiment. In 2009, Georgetown University Professor Daniel Hopkins documented various communities experiencing demographic change which then convulse in an anti-immigrant slow burn as “salient national rhetoric politicizes that demographic change.” (Read: immigration is easy to demagogue.) Political speech, honed to the lesser, Xenophobic angels, diminishes us. Punting, the default position for the Obama Administration and Congress the past four years, is unacceptable.

Kick-em-out applause lines won’t ameliorate a crisis that threads together employment, public safety, health, agriculture, entitlement spending and social justice. It’s governing season. Comprehensive immigration reform is the only tenable solution.

Continue reading

Promises still to keep: post-election follow through

originally published in The Herald

Until this day after the election, Washingtonians didn’t need to travel to Oslo to view Edward Munch’s “The Scream.” We had met “The Scream,” and he was us.

Enough. To bastardize Allen Ginsberg, we have seen the best minds of our generation destroyed by political ads, incessant, hysterical, truth-defiling, dragging themselves through the Everett streets at dawn looking for an angry fix. (Stopping cold turkey from a campaign binge means bracing for soft voices and television marketers not running for Congress.)

Elections are a counterweight to the kindergarten lesson that we’re all winners. No, we just took a vote, and Secretary of State Sam Reed will certify it. One winner, one loser. We played witness and judge, cajoled by a high-volume screech, much of it negative and soul-deadening. And now we wait for the final, final results in the nail-biters. And then we wait some more.

Continue reading

Tuesday’s Scan: Costco? Who says we’re from Costco?

originally published on Crosscut.com on May 22, 2012

In Alan J. Pakula’s brilliant film adaptation of Woodward and Bernstein’s All the President’s Men, Bob Woodward, played by Robert Redford, confronts an attorney named Markham during the arraignment of the Watergate burglars. “Markham,” Woodward says. “Mr. Markham, are you here in connection with the Watergate burglary?”  

“I’m not here,” Markham says.  

The scene, emblematic of absurd denials, was replayed in Olympia last week (minus E. Howard Hunt) as a team of Costco attorneys attended a state Supreme Court hearing challenging Initiative 1183, the Costco-underwritten measure that privatizes state liquor sales. Is there a compelling reason for attorneys to act so taciturn and Markham-like?  

“In my experience it’s tradition that after newsworthy oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the lawyers talk with reporters. Sometimes this happens in the chambers. Sometimes out in the foyer. Other times on the steps of the Temple of Justice,” Austin Jenkins writes in the Washington Ledge. “But on Thursday, neither [attorney David] Burman nor anyone from the Costco delegation would speak on the record. In fact, Costco Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer Joel Benoliel wouldn’t even identify himself to me. Instead, Benoliel — whom I later identified based on his picture — referred KOMO’s Bryan Johnson and me to the state’s attorney.”   

Wasn’t the whole purpose of I-1183 to de-bureaucratize and facilitate the purchase of hooch by impulsive miscreants like this Scan’s author? In practice,  liquor privatization could evolve into a monopoly, sidelining smaller businesses that hope to cash in. Are there adequate safeguards for little-guy booze peddlers or will they simply need to become more entrepreneurial?   

“After the state’s voters gave big retailers the right to sell liquor starting June 1, at least one chain is invoking a right that elbows out some slim small-store competition,” the Seattle Times Melissa Allison writes. “QFC is enforcing contracts at some of its locations that prohibit private liquor stores from operating in the same shopping centers, according to real-estate brokers involved in two local deals, one in Issaquah and the other in Kirkland. The restrictions, which are legal, are causing some people to scramble for new locations after they won rights in an auction to operate one of the state’s 167 existing liquor stores.”   

Snohomish County Councilmember Brian Sullivan’s mother did not raise a quitter. As the The Herald‘s Jerry Cornfield writes, “Democratic Snohomish County Councilman Brian Sullivan said Monday he’s not giving up on his dream to serve in Congress. He said he will remain a candidate in the special election to serve the final month of U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee’s term even though the field ballooned to 11 people last Friday, including five who want the job well into the future.”

Politics notwithstanding, it would be pretty sweet to witness Sullivan power past the crowded field and emerge triumphant. He or some other non-ambitious (write in PETER H. JACKSON) candidate who wouldn’t attempt to game the system, but rather promote the interests and greater good of the district (PETER H. JACKSON needs health insurance) in a farsighted, nonpartisan manner.  

The Green Moutain Lookout in Washington’s Glacier Peak Wilderness Area may live to see another summer. Sens. Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, and Rep. Rick Larsen have elbowed U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to do everthing legally kosher to put the kibosh on the lookout’s destruction. As the Seattlepi.com‘s Joel Connelly writes, “U.S. District Judge John Coughenour, ruling on a suit by Montana-based Wilderness Watch, recently ordered the U.S. Forest Service to remove the lookout.  The Seattle U.S. Attorney’s office has filed a motion to have the ruling remanded to allow the Forest Service to assess whether the historic lookout can remain.” The question revolves around helicopters used to reconstruct the lookout, a clear violation of the U.S. Wilderness Act of 1964. Arguably, someone should get a letter of reprimand from the U.S. Forest Service, but tear down an historic lookout? The remedy doesn’t exactly square with the violation.  

Lastly, if a tsunami comes this way, early warning may be a wee tougher to gauge. As KPLU’Tom Banse reports, “One quarter (12 of 39) of U.S.-operated tsunami warning buoys in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are out of service. That includes the two tsunami detection buoys directly off the Pacific Northwest coast. But the warning system has some redundancy built in.” Let’s hope that “redundancy” saves us.  

Tale of 2 Seattles: Obama mixes in very different settings

originally published on Crosscut.com on September 25, 2011

On Sunday a young American president intrepidly withstood the elements of the Pacific Northwest. He traversed a floating bridge like Gen. Patton crossing the Rhine and de-camped to a remote lakeside village, name of Medina. There he sat and listened to the real-world concerns of everyday Northwesterners, most of whom salted away money for a decade to pony up the price of admission ($35,800 a couple.)

Jealous not to be there? Indeed, this writer would have bartered his mother and wife to the Visigoths to attend.  

Thankfully, penurious writers benefit from well-heeled friends (who do you think pays for their meals)? Here’s what I learned from one of the many grateful attendees:  

The Medina shindig was hosted by philanthropist and former Microsoft president Jon Shirley and his spouse, Mary. Despite living in a tiny hamlet, they have quite a spread, including one of the most impressive art collections around (the Shirleys were generous benefactors of the Olympic Sculpture Park). Approximately 80 folks attended, including a handful of children. The tech industry was heavily represented.  

The president ran several minutes late, although no refunds or discounts were in the offing. (The good news: tickets included brunch). Once the president arrived, the photo-ops began. Everyone got their pic with “a very charming, very witty” president. Post-photos, Obama spoke for 20 minutes, underlining the country’s economic challenges in a mostly apolitical “statesmanlike” spiel. Then came a half-hour of Q&A.  

 The questions were relevant, the source said, and somewhat confrontational when it came to the environment. The president has been criticized by the conservation community, for example, for retreating on EPA clean-air regulations.  

The president acknowledged the importance of galvanizing the progressive community, a constituency that has felt marginalized of late. Democrats need to rally and be vigilant, he said. Obama also alluded to the Republican presidential candidates and some of the “frightening” and unreal aspects of their agenda. The source said, “He didn’t say it, but there was an unspoken sense that ‘these folks are nuts.”  

The brunch ended with a teenage girl asking about the role of youth. A spot-on question: President Obama will not get reelected if complacent younger voters sit on their hands in 2012.  

Obama bid adieu, braved Lake Washington again, and headed west to the Paramount Theatre for a less-ritzy fundraiser ($100 for the cheap seats). Facebook lit up. “Kissing babies and telling the truth in Seattle,” one attendee wrote. There, sports legends Lenny Wilkins and Bill Russell made a pitch.

“I need you guys to shake off any doldrums,” the president said near the end of his Paramount address. Unfortunately, President Obama was behind schedule. At this event, alas, there was no time for questions.